[Big D]

I returned my Sensa 2X-S for a weird sound phenomenon I was experiencing. When I opened my mouth even slightly the sound altered significantly. This was unrelated to any issues with the seal as this remained intact. The highs were much more prominent with my teeth clenched shut but became veiled when my jaw moved. I felt that the canal stalks were too long when I compared to my UE-10 Pro so I asked Sensaphonics to reduce the length of the stalks and alter the angle of the tip relative to the canal. After a quite protracted return journey I have them back and I can make more some subjective opinions. As my UE-10 Pro are being adjusted I can't make any specific comparisons but I'll make some general comparison comments.

First off the original problem has been solved and although there is a very slight alteration in the sound without the seal being broken through the range of jaw movement, it is only very minor. I don't think I'd have noticed it if I wasn't looking for it.

A lot has been said about why everyone seems to be so happy with custom IEMs. Basically both the UE-10 Pro and 2X-S excel in all areas over any of the generic fit IEMs that I have used before. This includes the Shure E2, E3, E5, Ety ER4P&S and Sony EX-71. While the UE-10 Pro offers a greater level of detail across all frequency ranges than the 2X-S, the 2X-S still offers far more detail than any of the other generic fit IEMs.

A lot has been made of Lindrone's comparison of the two and a few Sensa owners have been pimping their product based on this while putting down a product they have never used. Lindrone has previously been a big fan of the Shure E5 and disliked the Ety ER4. From the opinions he expressed in his comparison here I am not surprised at all that he came to the opinion he does with the UE-10 Pro and 2X-S. While the Shure E5 are "okay" I would personally take the E2 if I had the choice. The bass of the E5 is overdone and it is little surprise that someone who likes the E5 will prefer a canalphone with an accentuated bass over a more neutral bass.

The UE-10 Pro offers more detail "wow" moments than the 2X-S as it is clearly more detailed, but at a price. It achieves this by reducing note decay as has been mentioned before. This means that the 2X-S probably flows more truly, but doesn't quite squeeze the last 5% of detail that the UE-10 Pro does. Sometimes you would trade the detail for the musical flow, and vice versa. For example I was listening to Moby's Bodyrock with the UE-10 Pro last week. At 1:43 a piano comes in and there was suddenly a "wow" moment. There is no experience of this with the 2X-S as the bass is heavier. However I prefer the sound of the 2X-S when I listen to some of my older music like Tears For Fears, The Lightening Seeds, New Order, etc. Maybe I have a feeling of how that music should sound and the 2X-S gets it closer to that feeling.

On a heavily produced album like The Killers - Hot Fuss (what a ****ing mess that is!!) the analytical UE-10 Pro is much better at making it listenable than the 2X-S. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but if you compare to an album that was recorded in a garage and virtually no production (Gomez - Bring It On) then the difference is far more apparent.

I am really pleased that two superb high-end pieces of technology can bring something different to the table, please so many and still be fairly equal overall. I'd have to do more listening, but I know neither of these will be sitting in their boxes for more than a couple of days.

There is a time and a place for each!

 

[toaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big D The UE-10 Pro offers more detail "wow" moments than the 2X-S as it is clearly more detailed, but at a price. It achieves this by reducing note decay as has been mentioned before. This means that the 2X-S probably flows more truly, but doesn't quite squeeze the last 5% of detail that the UE-10 Pro does. Sometimes you would trade the detail for the musical flow, and vice versa.

so in your opinion, the greater detail and "wow" moments are enhanced by reducing (actually, you mean increasing) note decay?

according to that, it could be interpreted that the ue's are not more detailed, but due to their unrealistic note decay, according to both you and lindrone, more detail is readily apparent.

do you feel that the ue's actually produce more detail, or simply make it easier to hear the detail due to their quick note decay?

 

[kugino]

thanks for the review/update on your IEMs...almost any of us would be happy to have one of them, but you get to enjoy BOTH!

i'm close to springing for a pair of IEMs and like many who are in my situation, it's a tough buy not only because of how much they cost, but because there is no trial with the product as there is with almost every other headphone/canalphone out there. one can still at least try a pair of er4s or e5 before shelling out the dough.

so, we are left with the reviews/impressions/likes/dislikes of all of you who own these fine IEMs...are you and lindrone the only two to own both the ue-10 and the 2x-s? if so, it's at least nice that you seem to agree with one another on the specific sound characteristics of each - whether you agree on which you prefer is another matter altogether. it seems that the general (as general as two reviews can be) consensus is that the ue-10 is analytical and detailed and the 2x-s is more musical, with the caveat that both are as detailed and musical compared to the other IEMs or canalphones currently out there. does this sound right?

i'm not sure how much more detail i'd want over the er4s, which is already detailed enough for me...maybe a more musical IEM would be preferable, which makes me lean toward the 2x-s...

looking forward to your thoughts when you get your ue-10 back...

 

[toaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino i'm not sure how much more detail i'd want over the er4s, which is already detailed enough for me...maybe a more musical IEM would be preferable, which makes me lean toward the 2x-s...

fyi - the sensaphonics are FAR more detailed than the er-4s.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 so in your opinion, the greater detail and "wow" moments are enhanced by reducing (actually, you mean increasing) note decay? according to that, it could be interpreted that the ue's are not more detailed, but due to their unrealistic note decay, according to both you and lindrone, more detail is readily apparent. do you feel that the ue's actually produce more detail, or simply make it easier to hear the detail due to their quick note decay?

No, he meant reducing note decay. That way the rising note is more apparent, the part that we typically identify as "detail" are the rising notes, very often a proper and good decay is neglected in many headphones. Reducing the decay will make the rising note much easier to identify, also prevent subsequent notes from running into the still decaying note that came before it. Now.. is this natural?.. Definitely not.

This is a topic of debate that dates back.. to what it seems like eons ago now.. when I first reviewed ER-4 agains the E5c. Bangraman and I had went into discussion of this topic at length.

Not so long ago, Bangraman started this thread:
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=89117

In which he said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm saying that tonal characteristics aside, the E3c and the E5 are more accurate than the Etymotics, which to me indulges in what I earlier remarked as 'lie-fi'. It is absolutely true I think that the Etys seem clearer by a long shot. However I firmly believe after a practically a year of ownership of all three that it is not as accurate as the Shure phones, especially the E5.

This is the same way I feel about the 2X-S versus UE-10 Pro in their comparison. UE-10 does "enhance" the feeling of detail by various techniques that's very similar to ER-4; hence the sensation of more detail is apparent, but neither is it natural nor realistic.

However, just as many people are "detail freaks" and love their headphone to present as much perceived detail as possible, UE-10 Pro caters towards that taste more so than 2X-S.

 

[iamdone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 fyi - the sensaphonics are FAR more detailed than the er-4s.

I don't find that true in the sense that most ety user think of detail. The etys have noticeable highend detail because of the spiked highs, thin bass and midrange and short note decay.

The 2x-s seems to have a little more blending of sounds so some of the highend detail is harder to pick out. I don't find it lacking in detail in the highend, just compared to the etys. It does have better detail from the mid range down compared to the etys. The etys will also sound harsh and overly analytical coming directly from the 2x-s.

 

[random person]

Hi Big D!

This is an incredibly useful comparison. I think most people will now be able to decide between the two with reasonable confidence, based on their prior preferences.

There really is a piano coming in at 1:43 on Body Rock? Now, yeah it's very prominent at around 1:47 -- but that early???

But I wouldn't give up my bassline for anything!

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toaster22 fyi - the sensaphonics are FAR more detailed than the er-4s.

sure, that's why i said, "with the caveat that both are as detailed and musical compared to the other IEMs or canalphones currently out there"
since they're both more detailed, it would be nice to have musicality on top of that detail...the ue-10 sounds as though it has detail on top of that detail...

 

[vranswer]

OK. Now I'm confused/concerned. I love my Etys, but they are occasionally just too thin. This is especially noticeable when switching from my Westone UM2s, which straight up can put the hammer down on bass. But OTOH, I'm somewhat of a "detail freak" as Lindrone so aptly puts it, and I find the Ety signature intoxicating. If someday I were to jump off the cliff and do the unthinkable, I'm now at a total loss of what I would do. I want the musicality and fun (UM2) and I want the detail/treble (ER4). Which one of these two will give me what I want (...and I'll go away)?? UE10 Pro or Sensaphonics??

 

[lindrone]

IMO, if the goal is to get a balanced presentation between realistic detail and natural musicality, 2X-S is better. You can change what you're really listening for with your state of mind.

UE-10 Pro is more about detail, and you have less of a choice of what you want to listen to.

 

[Spankypoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindrone No, he meant reducing note decay. That way the rising note is more apparent, the part that we typically identify as "detail" are the rising notes, very often a proper and good decay is neglected in many headphones. Reducing the decay will make the rising note much easier to identify, also prevent subsequent notes from running into the still decaying note that came before it. Now.. is this natural?.. Definitely not.

Lindrone, I've seen you make the decreased-decay case a lot, and I'd love to see your original argument for it so I can get a better idea of what you mean.

I just don't quite understand how that works - do you believe this doesn't change the way the attack section of the note is presented?

And however much decay is removed, if the source material has signal, it's going to be reproduced. I would think it'd be just as accurate (if not more) to say that 'phones such as the Sensas actually add to the decay. I could see an obvious addition factor being possible (think terrible huge woofer in some guy's trunk which is blat-blatting long after the note's over, and sounds like it starts a 16th-beat too late), but to remove decay would suggest some kind of engineering which acts as a reverse signal compressor - it would have to produce less volume in relation to the signal at low levels than it would at high levels.

If it's as simple as decreasing resonances and reducing excessive residual movement after the signal has ended, then that could only be a good thing.

Make sense? I'll rewrite this if nobody can work with it.

I'm not attacking you, I just want to see the explanation for your position.

Now, Bangraman's claim of a balanced armature possibly adding a certain quality to the texture of the music (a la Ety) is a different issue, one I think (I've changed my views on it) to be quite plausible. (I, BTW, have a long e-mail still sitting in my inbox from October about this subject from an engineer who designs balanced armature drivers, and it's quite telling - I'll post it over on Bangraman's original thread when I get a chance.) But I don't think that's the same issue.

 

[iamdone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer OK. Now I'm confused/concerned. I love my Etys, but they are occasionally just too thin. This is especially noticeable when switching from my Westone UM2s, which straight up can put the hammer down on bass. But OTOH, I'm somewhat of a "detail freak" as Lindrone so aptly puts it, and I find the Ety signature intoxicating. If someday I were to jump off the cliff and do the unthinkable, I'm now at a total loss of what I would do. I want the musicality and fun (UM2) and I want the detail/treble (ER4). Which one of these two will give me what I want (...and I'll go away)?? UE10 Pro or Sensaphonics??

Well I was an ety fan and didn't like the shure E5 at all but I really love the 2x-s. I don't know if I'm a "detail freak" but 2x-s are very enjoyable and still very detailed. I don't miss the etys at all but I still enjoy them whenever I give them a listen. I have no idea if I'd prefer the ue10 over the 2x-s though but it sounds like I'd really enjoy them as well.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vranswer OK. Now I'm confused/concerned. I love my Etys, but they are occasionally just too thin. This is especially noticeable when switching from my Westone UM2s, which straight up can put the hammer down on bass. But OTOH, I'm somewhat of a "detail freak" as Lindrone so aptly puts it, and I find the Ety signature intoxicating. If someday I were to jump off the cliff and do the unthinkable, I'm now at a total loss of what I would do. I want the musicality and fun (UM2) and I want the detail/treble (ER4). Which one of these two will give me what I want (...and I'll go away)?? UE10 Pro or Sensaphonics??

vranswer, it seems like you're in the same boat as me. the sensaphonics sound like what you (and i) might be looking for - retaining the detail of the etys (and from what other say, add even more detail!) while at the same time adding a measure of musicality and fun.

 

[toaster]

the reason i said the sensas are far more detailed than the etys is because they do have the highend the etys have (and more) and infinitely more detail everywhere else, and in every respect.

they have the highs beyond that of the etys; clearer, no harshness, and more full. they have the lows; much further down than the etys, and even the e5's. they also have incredible impact.

the sensas essentially have much more far-reaching extension in both highs and lows, and tremendous detail and an intangible sense of liveliness that neither the ety nor the e5 is really capable of.

it's all been said before.

 

[lindrone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spankypoo I just don't quite understand how that works - do you believe this doesn't change the way the attack section of the note is presented?

Rising and falling notes are two completely characteristics of sound... You can find a lot of equipments, headphones and speakers that can presents one without being able to do the same with the other. Most of the time is rising note that gets represented correctly, and decaying note not.


Quote:

If it's as simple as decreasing resonances and reducing excessive residual movement after the signal has ended, then that could only be a good thing.

Not really, excessive resonance removal would just create an unrealistic representation of what the sound is really like. Artificially "cleaning up" the music isn't any better than creating way too much resonance and residual notes. Neither is more "accurate". Just that one would lead some people to think they're getting better sound because it all sounds cleaner. In reality it's no more accurate or better than the other way around.


Quote:

Now, Bangraman's claim of a balanced armature possibly adding a certain quality to the texture of the music (a la Ety) is a different issue, one I think (I've changed my views on it) to be quite plausible.

Yes, Bangraman was talking about another issue, I was combining what he talked about as in accentuating the rising note in combination with the shortening of decaying note that I've always noticed... and drawing the comparison between how the "hyper-detail" is achieved with similar methods with the ER-4 as well as the UE-10. I believe they use the same principles to produce what seems to be more detail than there really is in the recording. Whatever it is, I think we agree that tonal qualities aside, the detail level that's produced on Shure earphones is more "realistic" than Ety's... thus to compare UE-10's method of producing detail to 2X-S, albeit on a different scale, one would draw similar conclusions.


Anyway, addressing the issue of what constitutes a "natural decay" is not easy in the first place. Just like most other audiophile definitions, it is very much a subjective comparison between a wide range of product that is available to you. As some people consider Sennheiser the most natural and neutral sound, someone else will consider it laid back and too dark. By comparing a wide range of headphones, you pick out one that you think is the most life-like and mimics characteristics of say, if you were to attend live concerts or even, garage band practices.

So with that in mind, addressing the decay on the UE-10 Pro in comparison to all of the headphone that I've auditioned/owned, which includes: Sennheiser HD580/600/650, Sony CD3000, Audio Technica A900/A1000/W1000/W2002, AKG K501, Beyer DT880, and many other headphone, UE-10 Pro has a very short decay comparing to just all of them. Sennheiser headphones has a lot more decay, CD3000 has a very fluid and fast decay, yet still has more of it than UE-10 Pro. The comparison can be drawn over and over again, UE-10 Pro's decay is just short.

The next question is, how is this achieved? Tell you the truth, I don't really know, I'm not that technical about it. However, from what I do know... I had a conversation with Michael Santucci asking him some technical question a while back.. here's what I learned:

All of the balanced armature driver on the market is made by companies that develops them for hearing aids. They have a whole range of different types of drivers for different uses, but in their own measurements, these drivers covers much less frequency than needed for musical purposes.

Sensaphonics takes these drivers in, amplify them using their own circuits and designs, and drives the drivers to their threshold to get much wider frequency response from them than it was originally intended. Then, through very clever engineering, picking, choosing drivers with different frequency response, design amplifying circuits and crossover circuits for them.

So obviously what produces the final sound from these IEM's aren't just the driver by themselves, there are circuits, resistors behind them that determines what the final outcome of the sound will be like. Through the manipulation of these circuits, you can easily eliminate what would be perceived as "decay notes" by.. basically as you said, filtering them out to a degree, or decrease their intensity. There's all sorts of way you can tune the sound outcome.

Of course, combining that with the driver's own characteristics, not all of them has the same sized membrane, so of course the membrane itself has different resonance characteristics...

It's all a pretty complex equation that's way beyond my understanding. The fact is that decaying notes can be adjusted, just as any other sound characteristics can be manipulated/adjusted at various levels of sound reproduction.